this topic keeps resurfacing... i've been thinking about it again lately cuz it came up in class, plus i was reflecting on it while preparing for one of my papers. you know the submission blurb in Ephesians 5? a portion of it from the NIV looks like this:
v.21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives and Husbands
v.22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
what immediately stands out? the heading, right? even though the headings we find in our Bibles are technically not a part of Scripture, we actually read more into them than we should, non? i confess to using them... like when i'm skimming the pages to look for a certain passage, i use the headings as markers. you know who puts them there? not the translators. the editors. yes, i realize they're trying to be helpful... but there's no escaping subjectivity when it comes to matters of perspective, which is what these headings ultimately boil down to. take the above verses... did you know that verses 21 and 22 constitute a single sentence in the original Greek? the English translation actually breaks down a lot of the single Greek sentences into multiple ones... for example, verses 15-20 also comprise a single sentence... wait, maybe verses 21-22 are even a part of that sentence? i can't remember now. but either way, those two verses are a part of a single train of thought. basically something like, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, and wives to your husbands. so first of all, the English translation cuts it into two sentences. and then the editors read the English and arbitrarily decide that v.22 is the start of a new train of thought concerning wives and husbands, and so they put the heading in. do you not admit to interpreting the verses differently with the sentence split and the heading than if you were to have read the original Greek?
ok, i'm done with that. i also wanted to share a perspective on submission that i've been struggling with for a while. i do advocate the discipline of submission, by the way, even though i may not be coming across as such... but even then, it's quite complicated. so here's the thing... i believe we ought to submit to one another, and wives to their husbands as an extension... and ideally, this works out. if we all love each other the way we should, there should be no fear in submitting to one another. but all it takes is one person to not do their part, and the whole thing collapses. or does it?? because by saying that, i'm assuming that submission is a two-way street. is it? ideally, yes, because two-way submission is beneficial and hence a positive experience for both parties. but if one person submits and the other does not, and worse yet, the other person takes advantage of the one person's submission, then what?? do i continue to advocate submission even then? i want to say no. because it is so hard to know where and when and how to draw the line... for example, abuse. but here's the irony of it all: the essence of submission is most clearly demonstrated when it's one-way. kinda like how you know how much faith a person truly has only when it's put to the test. ** added feb 9: i thought of something else... you know that passage on loving your enemies? if you love only your loved ones, or basically anyone who would love you back, to what extent is that really love? i mean, it's love, no doubt... but it's conditional. and for some reason, i have no problem classifying unconditional love as greater than conditional love. but does submission work the same way? or are there a lot more loopholes to it? ** if you can submit to a person only if that person submits to you and it's equal between both parties, how genuine of a submission is that?
which leads me back to square one. ahhh... there's no place like home.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
ok, i'm probably gonna be out of context, but here's my shot at it just from reading the arguments here:
First of all and obviously, the word that stands out is the word "Submit". It's an action word, command or not, and the onus is on the Submittor. I will not place gender here because I do believe it should be both ways.
The next thing to focus on is the object which is "to one another", so that hints at who it should be directed to. Both or all have that action given to them. I do not know the underlying text in the original language but I don't believe the phrase "be submitted to" is part of the command. (i.e., husbands or some such, be submitted to by your wives.) That is, the submission should not be something the directed party is on the onus to enforce. Rather, if it is given (the submission, that is). I believe it should be taken in gratitude and not abused as you say.
There does not seem to be an "only if" kinda condition in the text, as in "submit only if you are submitted to". However, the major (if not sole) reasoning behind this submission is stated as being out of reverence for Christ. That being said so that your submission is not for any other purpose that is not glorifying to God. (i.e., pretty much making the other person an idol, or submission to the point where it is morally wrong like you would sin for the other person, etc.)
--
i'm just spewing out points here, let me know if it does not make sense.
i'm not sure where to begin. your focus is different from mine. you expanded on points that i wouldn't have chosen to expand on. so i agree and disagree at the same time about many things. for example, even if it's to one another, gender does matter. submitting has to be done by the submittor, yes, but the other party has a major role to play in how that's done.
too tired to back up my case, unfortunately. maybe later, we'll see.
for starters, i had no intention of building an argument. in the first paragraph, i was merely pointing out that the heading places greater emphasis on wives submitting to husbands and thereby lesser emphasis on mutual submission. and then i continued the post by asking a lot of questions as to how submission is defined, carried out, etc.
that being said, it seems you've already worked out your view on this topic. i posted the two verses and the heading and i said that the heading (and hence its gender implications) stood out, but in contrast, you intentionally chose 'submit' to be the thing that stood out and focused on 'one another' rather than address the issue of gender. you mean the word 'submit' stood out to you more than the heading? seriously?
as for the verb 'submit'... (ugh, i'm getting lazy typing this up...) there was a lot i simplified or left out in my post. first of all, i haven't taken any greek yet so i don't claim to be all that knowledgeable about this. what i do know is that there are a couple of key new testament "manuscripts" that scholars base their translations on. king james uses the textus receptus, for example... they have their reasons but they're kinda on their own in that. most translations today use the nestle-aland edition of the greek NT, which is a more recent and more encompassing compilation (i.e. it includes the textus receptus and more). anyway, what i heard in class about the two verses being a part of the same train of thought is actually based on the nestle-aland manuscript. oh, and i was wrong about the two verses being a part of the same sentence. that was what i remembered from class, but either my prof miscommunicated the info or i misinterpreted it and assumed that the same train of thought meant it would be the same sentence. btw, if you wanna verify all this, go to studylight.org and click on 'interlinear bible' and look it up yourself. anyway... nestle-aland shows that v.22 is the start of a new sentence, but carries on the train of thought of v.21 because the verb hupotasso (i.e. submit) is not found in v.22. however, if you check out the textus receptus, you do find the verb in v.22. so it's up to you what manuscript you wanna go by, depending on your bias.
you'll also find that there's more to a verb than just being a verb. i didn't really wanna get into it, but since you brought it up, i should tell you that you didn't break it down quite right. for v.22, NIV has 'Wives, submit to your husbands' whereas KJV has 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands' and NASB has 'Wives, be subject to your own husbands'... that's like, three different types of verbs right there. and they all mean slightly different things. the first is your typical imperative... it's active in form, which means that the subject (i.e. wives) is the one doing the submitting. you can easily replace 'submit (to)' with other imperatives and the sentence still works. 'wives, call out to your husbands'... 'wives, love your husbands'... 'wives, kick your husbands'... whatever. the KJ translation is slightly different cuz it's become reflexive (i.e. submit yourselves) so this places greater attention and emphasis on the subject. you can't replace this verb as easily because its function is so much more specific... 'wives, love yourselves unto your husbands' or 'wives, kick yourselves unto your husbands' doesn't exactly work. and then there's NASB which doesn't even use 'submit' but 'be subject to'... this is a passive form, which means that the subject is on the receiving end of the verb. it's borderline stative, even... like, if it weren't in imperative form and the sentence was 'i am subject to my husband,' then the verb connotes an indefinite state of being rather than some simple action that can be started and completed in a given time frame.
so back to what you wrote. your whole 'onus' line of reasoning kinda falls apart after what i just mentioned. oh, and i forgot to address the reciprocal form of the verb in v.21... especially in this case, you can't have a one-sided onus cuz then it wouldn't be reciprocal. btw, i think i know what you're saying... that the onus is on the party doing the submitting, and if both parties are doing the submitting, then it's kinda like a one-sided onus happening on both sides and therefore reciprocal... that's what you mean, right? well... i disagree with that. the act is mutual, maybe, but not reciprocal. reciprocality is like a handshake. it's not like i can shake your hand and the onus is completely on me to carry it out and you have no part in it except to receive the shake. the act of me shaking your hand means that you must also be shaking mine. you have to receive the shake as much as i have to give the shake. there is no one-sided onus in reciprocality.
anyway, you focused mostly on v.21... what about v.22? there is clearly no 'one another' in this case... the submitting is done by the wives. how would you reconcile this with the previous verse?
regarding your last point, it's not that i don't agree with it... i just never saw submission to be any of the examples you stated. sounds more like being 'whipped' or wrapped around the finger, as though you can't stop yourself even if you tried. i believe one of the key aspects of submission is that it has to be done consciously and voluntarily.
and...... i could go on, but i'll end it here. american idol is starting, haha
funny ;) i like!
(oratorical snob... hehe... heeheheeeee.... ahahahaha....!!!)
the heading didn't really do it for me, hehehehe... which is prolly why my "out of context" disclaimer didn't take with ppl reading it as well, hahahaa...
and i don't believe i mentioned or even bothered defining the concepts of "reciprocal" and "mutual" in my train of thought... so i don't really get what you mean about arguments falling apart.. if you mean to say my use of the word "onus" implies reciprocation (i think i made up that word just now), that is not my intent at all... my whole point is the word "submit" (whatever verb form it is) taken alone does not mean mutual or the other one... but the rest of the verse gives the direction...
haha, and it was funny how you assumed my view of submission means being "whipped" and all, God forbid that's really what ppl think I meant... or was it the concept that it was a "natural thing that will eventually happen" that you think i implied? in either case, i do think it is a voluntary and conscious act... and my not expanding on the 22nd verse? it's not that I didn't expand on it... it's more that what my points for v21 is along the lines of what i wanted to say about v22 anyways... gender would matter in how submit is done, perhaps. or in this case, how it is viewed, hahahaah...
i'm glad i evoked reaction though, hahaha, i'm always up for reading stuff.. although it can get a bit heady sometimes, espesh when brian quotes west wing and the like... ahahha, j/k B...
anyways, if i wasn't already messed, you'd make my head hurt :)
done and done.
shalom, dude.
Post a Comment